Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2013 Jul 23:14:28.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-28.

Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials

Adam Nishimura  1 , Jantey Carey, Patricia J Erwin, Jon C Tilburt, M Hassan Murad, Jennifer B McCormick
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials

Adam Nishimura et al. BMC Med Ethics. .

Abstract

Background: Obtaining informed consent is a cornerstone of biomedical research, yet participants comprehension of presented information is often low. The most effective interventions to improve understanding rates have not been identified.

Purpose: To systematically analyze the random controlled trials testing interventions to research informed consent process. The primary outcome of interest was quantitative rates of participant understanding; secondary outcomes were rates of information retention, satisfaction, and accrual. Interventional categories included multimedia, enhanced consent documents, extended discussions, test/feedback quizzes, and miscellaneous methods.

Methods: The search spanned from database inception through September 2010. It was run on Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid CINAHL, Ovid PsycInfo and Cochrane CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science and Scopus. Five reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened full abstract text to determine eligibility. We included only RCTs. 39 out of 1523 articles fulfilled review criteria (2.6%), with a total of 54 interventions. A data extraction form was created in Distiller, an online reference management system, through an iterative process. One author collected data on study design, population, demographics, intervention, and analytical technique.

Results: Meta-analysis was possible on 22 interventions: multimedia, enhanced form, and extended discussion categories; all 54 interventions were assessed by review. Meta-analysis of multimedia approaches was associated with a non-significant increase in understanding scores (SMD 0.30, 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.84); enhanced consent form, with significant increase (SMD 1.73, 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.47); and extended discussion, with significant increase (SMD 0.53, 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.84). By review, 31% of multimedia interventions showed significant improvement in understanding; 41% for enhanced consent form; 50% for extended discussion; 33% for test/feedback; and 29% for miscellaneous.Multiple sources of variation existed between included studies: control processes, the presence of a human proctor, real vs. simulated protocol, and assessment formats.

Conclusions: Enhanced consent forms and extended discussions were most effective in improving participant understanding. Interventions of all categories had no negative impact on participant satisfaction or study accrual. Identification of best practices for studies of informed consent interventions would aid future systematic comparisons.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of results from search process for articles.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Meta-analysis of interventions reviewed.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Manson NC, O’Neill O. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
    1. Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, Kondilis BK, Peppas G. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg. 2009;198(3):420–435. - PubMed
    1. Moreno J, Caplan AL, Root WP. Updating protections for human subjects involved in research. JAMA. 1998;280(22):1951–1958. - PubMed
    1. Markman M. What must research subjects be told regarding the results of completed randomized trials? IRB: Ethics and Human Research. 2004;26(3):8–10. - PubMed
    1. Koyfman SA, McCabe MS, Emanuel EJ, Grady C. A consent from template for phase 1 oncology trials. IRB: Ethics and Human Research. 2009;31(4):1–8. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources